How to Deal With Cheaters and the Ethics of Infidelity

[GeorginaS]

Yeah, but some seem to need Xanax to deal with "betrayal" Life is, most of the time pretty straightforward, and, may I add, usually pretty fair. What goes around, comes around.

I beg to differ. There's nothing inherently "fair" about life in the least. There are no direct patterns. There is no one running show and keeping track and meting out just desserts.

I also find it disturbing (although maybe I'm misinterpreting your use of the "devil" face as mockery) that you find other people's pain scorn worthy. Betrayal hurts. Period.

 

[GeorginaS]

I repeat, there is nothing wrong in hitting any women whatsoever from my perspective. A married women is fair game.

I'm going to assume you missed the word "on" in your sentence. Then again, maybe you don't see anything wrong with hitting women.

And yes, I see something wrong with making sexual advances on someone who you know has made a promise to another person. It's called respect and treating people and their choices with respect.

 

[Huckleberry]

Well. Problem with "instincts" in this matter is that they are shaped by an obscure set of social norms, which are not observed by all humans. They are not instinct at all, but conformity. "You shall not commit adultery." An ancient , religious, deprecated view. NO ONE owns another person. Not even with the so called 'sacred' bond of matrimony.

I repeat, there is nothing wrong in hitting any women whatsoever from my perspective. A married women is fair game.

Instinct or conformity, in most parts of the world it is reasonable for Y to believe that a relationship is monogamous. X and Z may have a monogamous relationship and not be religious at all. No one owns another person, but a monogamous relationship is an agreement between two people. People are expected to uphold their agreements, or to at least exit them honorably. That is why clandestine sex outside a monogamous relationship is called cheating. They aren't playing by the agreed upon rules of monogamy.

Moonie, You're right about the relationship already being broken if someone is willing to cheat, though sometimes a relationship can seem to be going well before the indiscretion. There isn't always a clear progression from going well to being broken.

(I'm trying to imagine if I were married and my wife said to me, "You don't own me. I can have sex with whomever I want." That would be the end of that marriage. Sure, I don't own her, but it doesn't follow from that she shouldn't uphold her commitments.)

 

[Dembadon]

Well. Problem with "instincts" in this matter is that they are shaped by an obscure set of social norms, which are not observed by all humans. They are not instinct at all, but conformity. "You shall not commit adultery." An ancient , religious, deprecated view. NO ONE owns another person. Not even with the so called 'sacred' bond of matrimony.

I repeat, there is nothing wrong in hitting any women whatsoever from my perspective. A married women is fair game.

One does not have to be religious to hold integrity and honesty high in priority. The very use of the word "cheater" implies there was a mutual agreement that was not honored. Mutual agreements between two people exist everywhere; independent of one's religious beliefs and/or view of marriage.

 

[Kajahtava]

I'm going to assume you missed the word "on" in your sentence. Then again, maybe you don't see anything wrong with hitting women.

And yes, I see something wrong with making sexual advances on someone who you know has made a promise to another person. It's called respect and treating people and their choices with respect.

Maybe the point is, by making a commitment those two people make an agreement to not to extracurricular stuff. I see no reason other people should keep to an agreement, or rather, help them keep to it, an agreement two people made, why should other people help them with it?

I never made an agreement with any-one that I should not go after married game?

Of course, this situation solves itself if you only make those agreements with people that can keep them, that's a false illusion mostly. Remember, it's not only about a person cheating, it's also about finding out.

Ask yourself, of all the times you found out that a partner cheated, or heard a person finding out, in how many cases did they find out, and in how many cases did they confess?

Let's say for sake of argument it's 50/50? And let's say for sake of argument you only find out in half the cases, a generous estimate, I'm more willing to say you only find out in 10% of the cases, especially people that are naïve and narcissistic enough to trust their significant other. That means that half the people tell they cheated, and in half the times they cheated and didn't tell you find out on yourself. So that means that still 25% of cases you never find out about.

Thinking your significant other doesn't cheat because you haven't fund out yet or he or she hasn't told you yet is blatantly naïve. Stay one step ahead of your enemies, and two steps ahead of your friends.

 

[ViewsofMars]

"

I repeat, there is nothing wrong in hitting any women whatsoever from my perspective. A married women is fair game.

"
- - -
Have you logically considered the consequences of what you have written DanL?

1. Lawsuit
2. Encouring children or adults to hit his or her mother and/or wife or a stranger who is a female.
3. Setting a very bad example of abuse.
4. No respect for females.

Food for thought! And, I'll be very honest with you, Dan, your statement is that of an irrational person.

 

[Huckleberry]

If one can't trust their partner then what point is there to having any relationship with them? Treating a partner as if they were untrustworthy and then expecting them to be trustworthy hardly condones intimacy or equality in a relationship.

Ghandi could never let me down if I treat him like a murderer and a rapist, but he can't lift me up if I don't trust that his intentions follow his words and deeds. Trust is not a naive gullibility. Paranoia is a delusion.

 

[Char. Limit]

I like many, will assume that Dan either meant "hit on" or "hit" as in "have sex with".

Dan, people like you are the reason that many men and women REALLY don't like it when their spouses go to a bar or somewhere alone. The faithful ones are worried that their spouse will meet up with someone like you, someone who thinks that there's "absolutely nothing wrong" with tempting their spouses to cheating.

Remind me to never let any future wife near you, Dan.

 

[ViewsofMars]

"

I wouldn't hate people for their actions though, that's naïve, I fully believe that every person on the planet, Ghandi included is fully capable of murder or rape when the right stimuli are given, I find it better to like or dislike people on what they are, id est, how much stimuli is required for them to cross that line. As I said, she still is the same person as before.

"
---
Really? So Kajahtava, have you ever seen (stimuli) someone crossing the line murdering or raping someone? I do think that if a loved one was murdered or raped, it would be normal to have a full range of emotions such as hatred, anger, etc. As far as Ghandi is concerned I personally don't think he is 'fully capable of murder or rape when the right stimuli are given' as you have noted. It's very harmful to throw out a famous, well-known peaceful person such as Ghandi and infer "your" idea of murder and rape would apply to him.

---
"

I like many, will assume that Dan either meant "hit on" or "hit" as in "have sex with".

Dan, people like you are the reason that many men and women REALLY don't like it when their spouses go to a bar or somewhere alone. The faithful ones are worried that their spouse will meet up with someone like you, someone who thinks that there's "absolutely nothing wrong" with tempting their spouses to cheating.

Remind me to never let any future wife near you, Dan.

"
---
Hi Car. Limit, he may have subconciously been telling the truth. I can only go off of what Dan wrote as I've noted in my previous posting to him. Car.Limit, a muture, sensible woman who might be having a cocktail in a lounge after a business meeting or after a play with a group of ladies (Girl's night out inclusive of married and non-married women.) doesn't mean they would be *tempted* by DanL. I do hope when you do marry that the woman wants to cuddle up with only with you.

 

[Kajahtava]

Really? So Kajahtava, have you ever seen (stimuli) someone crossing the line murdering or raping someone?

Well, garbage in, garbage out nay? It sort of rationally follows from the structure of the human nervous system.

There must be some configurations of nerves to start firing to eventually result into getting a knife and stabbing a person. Don't know what it is, but there simply must be one, this can be a magnetic spool put to your brain at the right moment in the far extreme.

I do think that if a loved one was murdered or raped, it would be normal to have a full range of emotions such as hatred, anger, etc.

It would, but I fail to see your point. Likewise, it is normal to murder a person who's a loved one in some situations.

The murderer is seldom without friends, many of whom are unaware of the murderer's nature, some are but love the murderer regardless. Most parents would still love their child though being aware of their child's aggression disorders and knowing that he could snap and kill a man, put again against his head, pull his trigger; then he's dead.

As far as Ghandi is concerned I personally don't think he is 'fully capable of murder or rape when the right stimuli are given' as you have noted. It's very harmful to throw out a famous, well-known peaceful person such as Ghandi and infer "your" idea of murder and rape would apply to him.

Well, as I said, garbage in, garbage out.

A human central nervous system is still understood as being simply a swarm intelligence, simply put, each neuron gets fired at in some configuration, and fires outward again, causing a cascade which will eventually result into things like that when the image of a cake falls onto your retinae, you eat it. There must be some configuration of 'fires' starting to result into people getting an axe and chopping a head off.

It's like stepping through a wall, small chance, higher chance that your hand randomly explodes in a gory configuration, but still a chance there.

Besides, if you accept QM, you have to accept in the end that all people are capable of murder, albeit not deterministically.

By the way, this comes from a person who refuses to fight back once he's being attack because he first wants to hear what the other person has to say to defend his or her actions, it might be justified, nay?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

She is no different person than before. She still is, as she was, a person that would potentially succumb to cheating. If you thought she wasn't, you have simply never known her well; one could wonder the base of your feelings then.

Otherwise, let's say you never found out? you would then still live in the idea that she wasn't cheating.

I wouldn't hate people for their actions though, that's naïve, I fully believe that every person on the planet, Ghandi included is fully capable of murder or rape when the right stimuli are given, I find it better to like or dislike people on what they are, id est, how much stimuli is required for them to cross that line. As I said, she still is the same person as before.

If this is in response to the OP then I would say that what changed was our relationship and the manner in which it changed would be dependent upon the fallout of the situation as I noted in the OP. The various likely outcomes of staying together, considering the circumstances, appeared unacceptable. I do not hate her. We are still friends, after a period of time apart from one another. Had we stayed together though the situation likely would have deteriorated to the point where a friendly aftermath would have been incredibly unlikely.